Enclave Deliberations in the Public — Doublespeak and Dog Whistles in the Digital Age

Increasingly, communication takes place online and in digital enclaves. This paper examines these enclaves and divides them into three categories. The first category is comprised of virtuous digital counter-publics which serve as spaces of empowerment and reinforce democratic norms by providing epistemic resources as well as social and emotional support for more effective participation in the public sphere (e.g. LGBTQ groups and forums). The second category is comprised of inward-looking anti-democratic counter-publics. This type of digital enclave empowers it members while discouraging them from engaging in dialogue with out-group members. Members of these enclaves are armed with language, memes, and references that are exclusive to group members (e.g. Incel/involuntary celibate groups and forums).The final category is comprised of outward-looking anti-democratic counter-publics. Members of these enclaves are similarly equipped with in-group references and vocabulary but frequently make contributions to the larger public sphere. They routinely deploy doublespeak and dog whistles to send different messages to different groups in the public (e.g. Alt-right and white supremacist organizations). Building on the core assumptions of deliberative democracy and justificatory politics, this paper emphasizes publicity as well as the dual tasks of listening and justification as necessary for a functioning democracy and a healthy public sphere and contends that the third category of digital enclaves poses the greatest threat to deliberation and democracy. By operationalizing speech acts that obfuscate their meaning, the precept of publicity is effectively undermined. Similarly, doublespeak and dog whistles are by nature meant to be unhearable to a portion of the public which undermines the principle of listening. Finally, this type of communication deflects accountability; enables plausible deniability, and permits the speaker to claim ignorance on her part or misinterpretation on the part of the hearer; and create conditions that make it difficult to ground demands for justification.